DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on 3 June 2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 32, 48, and 50-67 are pending in the application, claims 55 and 66 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-31, 33-47, and 49 have been cancelled. Claim 67 has been added.
Amendments to the claims 32, 48, and 50-56, filed on 27 May 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 27 May 2026, regarding the objections made of record, have been fully considered and were deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 27 May 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and were deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 27 May 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record over Albertson in view of Wollard and Zhou, have been fully considered and deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 27 May 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered but were deemed unpersuasive.
Applicants argued that Albertson and Eibon alone or in combination do not teach the claimed coating comprising a binder and a plurality of aluminum flakes dispersed in the binder, each aluminum flake having a surface layer of at least one of a colored material and a luminescent material, or an articulated rational to combine the references. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the instant case, Albertson was relied upon for teaching a fastener having a colored coating to distinguish fastener groups (figure 1B, 5B, 5D, [Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40], [Col. 6: li. 31 to Col. 7: li. 35], and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 8] of Albertson). Eibon was relied upon for teaching of a metallic substrate having a colored coating comprising a resinous phase (binder) and a pigment composition, the pigment composition comprising colored inorganic pigment particles, metal and/or metal alloy flake pigment particles, and interference pigment particles, wherein the metal and/or metal alloy flake pigment particles can be aluminum flakes having coloring pigment chemically absorbed onto their surface ([0006], [0012], [0057], [0058], [0092], [0106], and [0109] of Eibon). (Eibon clearly teaching a coating, for use on a metal substrate, with a binder and aluminum flakes with a surface layer of at least one of colored material, as claimed.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to have been motivated to have incorporated the substrate and the coating of Eibon with the fastener and the coating, respectively, disclosed by Albertson, from the stand-point of having a non-ferrous (e.g., aluminum) substrate with a tri-coat coating system of fewer than three coating layers and the coating having a hue angle of 118-158 when measured at a 25° viewing angle ([0001], [0012], and [0115] of Eibon). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses that the coating can have a color used to distinguish the physical and other characteristics of the fasteners ([Col. 2: li. 58-61] of Albertson), Eibon discloses a tri-coat layer with a colored, translucent coating that exhibits gonio-apparent properties ([0003] of Eibon). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the colored coating of Eibon as the coating of Albertson to have a distinguishable coating for identifying fasteners. Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the fastener be a metallic fastener, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Therefore, in light of applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record over Albertson in view of Eibon, over Albertson in view of Eibon and Millar, over Albertson in view of Eibon and Chang, and over Albertson in view of Eibon and Mikami, are all still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 32, 48, 51, 56-65, and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1), as evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("Pure Red") (referred to herein as "NPL-1") and Non-Patent Literature No. 2 ("Yellow") (referred to herein as "NPL-2"), and Non-Patent Literature No. 3 ("CIE2000 Calculator") (referred to herein as "NPL-3").
Regarding Claims 32, 56, and 65: Albertson discloses categorizing fasters and construction connectors by size and type using a color coding system, wherein a different color is pre-selected to define a fastener property, and the colors can be fluorescent colors, visible light spectrum colors, neon colors, and marking materials that fade over time (figure 1B, [Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40], and [Col. 6: li. 31 to Col. 7: li. 35] of Albertson). Albertson also discloses a construction comprising construction connects and color coded fasteners applied to color coded corresponding construction connects, wherein the construction connectors are secured by the fasteners (figure 5B, 5D, and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 8] of Albertson). Specifically, Albertson provides for --a coated fastener comprising: a fastener body; and a coating applied to at least a portion of the fastener body-- {instant claim 32}, --a fastening system, comprising: a plurality of groups of coated fasteners, each group of coated fasteners comprising: a fastener body; and a coating applied to at least a portion of the fastener body, wherein each group of fasteners comprises a plurality of identical coated fasteners, wherein each group of fasteners has a specific structural characteristic that differs between the groups, and wherein each group of fasteners has a distinct color represented by a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)-- {instant claim 56} and --an assembled structure, comprising: a plurality of components; and the plurality of groups of fasteners of the fastening system securing the plurality of components together within the assembled structure-- {instant claim 65}. (Note: Albertson discloses that the colored coating can be selected from several kinds of colors (e.g., red, yellow, orange, etc.) (figure 1B of Albertson). Since CIE Lab coordinates are a color mapping system used to identify various colors, each color would have --a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)-- as claimed.)
Albertson fails to disclose that --the coating comprising: a metal pigment having a surface layer of at least one of a colored material and a luminescent material; and a binder-- {instant claims 32 and 56}.
Eibon discloses a metallic substrate including a multilayer coating composition comprising at least an opaque coating layer, the opaque coating layer comprising a resinous binder and a pigment composition, the pigment composition comprising colored inorganic pigment particles (e.g., white inorganic pigment particles of titanium dioxide), metal and/or metal alloy flake pigment particles, and interference particles ([0001], [0006], [0012], [0057], [0058], [0092], and [0100]-[0104] of Eibon). Eibon also discloses that the metal and/or metal alloy flake pigment particles can be "leafing" aluminum flakes which have a coating deposited thereon ([0105] and [0106] of Eibon). Eibon further discloses that the flake metal or metal alloy pigment particles include colored metallic pigments in which coloring pigment is chemically absorbed on the surface of the metallic pigment ([0109] of Eibon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the substrate and the coating of Eibon with the fastener and the coating, respectively, disclosed by Albertson in order to have --the coating comprising: a metal pigment having a surface layer of at least one of a colored material; and a binder--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the substrate and the coating of Eibon with the fastener and the coating, respectively, disclosed by Albertson, from the stand-point of having a non-ferrous (e.g., aluminum) substrate with a tri-coat coating system of fewer than three coating layers and the coating having a hue angle of 118-158 when measured at a 25° viewing angle ([0001], [0012], and [0115] of Eibon). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses that the coating can have a color used to distinguish the physical and other characteristics of the fasteners ([Col. 2: li. 58-61] of Albertson), Eibon discloses a tri-coat layer with a colored, translucent coating that exhibits gonio-apparent properties ([0003] of Eibon). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the colored coating of Eibon as the coating of Albertson to have a distinguishable coating for identifying fasteners. Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the fastener be a metallic fastener, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Regarding Claim 48: Albertson in view of Eibon discloses that the metallic fastener body is selected from the group consisting of bolts, screws, nuts, and rivets ([Col. 6: li. 25-30] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 51: Albertson in view of Eibon discloses that the surface layer comprises the colored material ([0105], [0106], and [0109] of Eibon).
Regarding Claims 57-62: Albertson in view of Eibon discloses the claimed fastening system, but does not explicitly recite --a color difference ΔE between any two groups of fasteners, calculated using a CIEDE2000 color difference formula, is greater than a predetermined threshold value (T)-- {instant claims 57-62} along with --T is 3.0-- {instant claim 57}, --T is 5.0-- {instant claim 58}, --T is 10.0-- {instant claim 59}, --T is 20.0-- {instant claim 60}, --T is 30.0-- {instant claim 61}, or --T is 45.0-- {instant claim 62}.
Albertson in view of Eibon do no explicitly disclosed a color difference value that is greater than the predetermined threshold value. However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1]) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2]). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, it has been evidenced by NPL-3 (which provided a color difference calculator that used the CIEDE2000 color difference formula) that they would have a calculated color difference of 64.32 (see [Pg. 1] of NPL-3); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --ΔE is greater than T, wherein T is 3.0-- {instant claim57}, --ΔE is greater than T, wherein T is 5.0-- {instant claim 58}, --ΔE is greater than T, wherein T is 10.0-- {instant claim 59}, --ΔE is greater than T, wherein T is 20.0-- {instant claim 60}, --ΔE is greater than T, wherein T is 30.0-- {instant claim 61}, and --ΔE is greater than T, wherein T is 45.0-- {instant claim 62}. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claims 63 and 64: Albertson in view of Eibon discloses the claimed fastening system, but does not explicitly recite --the colors of each group of fasteners have a vibrancy represented by a chroma value (C) greater than a predetermined minimum chroma threshold (CT) in a CIE LCH color space, wherein the chroma value (C) is calculated using formula C =sqrt(a2 + b2), where a and b are the CIE Lab coordinates of the color-- {instant claims 63 and 64} along with --wherein CT is 40-- {instant claim 63} and --wherein CT is 60-- {instant claim 64}.
However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1])) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2])). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, they would have a chroma value calculated to be about 104.5 [=sqrt((80.1)2+(67.2)2)] and about 96.90 [=sqrt((-21.56)2+(94.48)2)], respectively; which both anticipate the claimed ranges of --C greater than CT, wherein CT is 40-- {instant claim 63} and --C greater than CT, wherein CT is 60-- {instant claim 64}. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 67: Albertson in view of Eibon discloses that the metallic fastener body is an aluminum fastener body ([0012] of Eibon).
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Millar (US 4,097,639 A).
Albertson in view of Eibon is relied upon as recited above.
Regarding Claim 50: Albertson in view of Eibon discloses that the metal pigment is in the form of flakes ([0105] and [0106] of Eibon), but fails to disclose that --the metal pigment is in the form of flakes aligned parallel to a surface of the fastener body--.
Millar discloses a coating exhibiting a flamboyant finish on a conductive substrate ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar). Millar also discloses that the coating comprises a first coating of a thermosetting film-forming first polymer, a catalytic amount of a blocked catalyst for the first polymer, flake pigments (e.g., leafing aluminum pigment), and other additives ([Col. 1: li. 67 to Col. 2: li. 9] and [Col. 2: li. 31-35] of Millar). Millar further discloses that the first coating is heated to a temperature at which substantially all the pigment flakes are placed in generally the same orientation, and become substantially oriented parallel to the surface of polymer removed from the substrate (i.e., parallel to the substrate surface) ([Col. 3: li. 11-37] and [Col. 5: li. 28-32] of Millar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon in order to have --the metal pigment flakes aligned parallel to a surface of the fastener body--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon, from the stand-point of having a flamboyant finish ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar).
Claims 52 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2016/0295963 A1).
Albertson in view of Eibon is relied upon as recited above.
Regarding Claim 52: Albertson in view of Eibon failed to disclose that --the surface layer comprises the luminescent material--.
Chang discloses an article comprising reflective particles that can be metal flakes or may include a phosphorescent material so that the reflective particles are a "glow-in-the-dark" material ([0047] of Chang). (In the instant case, Chang seeks to solve the same problem of having easily detectable articles with luminescent properties.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the phosphorescent material of Chang with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon in order to have --the surface layer comprises the luminescent material--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the phosphorescent material of Chang with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon, from the stand-point of having reflective particles that are glow-in-the-dark ([0047] of Chang). (In the instant case, Eibon discloses that the metal and/or metal flake pigments particles can have a coating deposited thereon ([0106] of Eibon), wherein Chang discloses depositing phosphorescent material on reflective material ([0047] of Chang). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to coat the surface of the metal pigment flakes with phosphorescent material, so as to make them glow-in-the-dark capable.)
Regarding Claim 54: Albertson in view of Eibon and Chang discloses that the luminescent material comprises a phosphorescent material ([0047] of Chang).
Claims 52 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Mikami et al. (WO 2009/096492 A1).
Albertson in view of Eibon is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 52: Albertson in view of Eibon discloses the claimed coated fastener, but fails to disclose --the surface layer comprises the luminescent material--.
Mikami discloses a flake body composed of a metal oxide, an organic acid, and at least one kind of fluorescent dye ([Pg. 2: li. 31-36], [Pg. 3: li. 3-5 and 12-17], and [Pg. 5: li. 20-25] of Mikami).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the flakes of Mikami into the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon in order to have --the surface layer comprise the luminescent material--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the flakes of Mikami into the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Eibon, from the stand-point of having a flake body containing fluorescent dye with good color developability, and that upon excitation by absorbing ultraviolet light, visible light, or infrared light, emits ultraviolet light, visible light, or infrared light ([Pg. 5: li. 20-21] and [Pg. 6: li. 9-10] of Mikami). (In the instant case, because Eibon discloses a coating comprising metal flake pigment particles and interference pigment particles, it would have been obvious to incorporate or combine the flake body of Mikami so as to have fluorescent capable particles.)
Regarding Claim 53: Albertson in view of Eibon and Mikami discloses that the luminescent material comprises a fluorescent material (e.g., fluorescent dye) ([Pg. 2: li. 31-36] of Mikami).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights